The entirely and purposefully misleading 31-page report on Election Problems in Ohio that was produced by the fake "voting rights" group calling themselves the "American Center for Voting Rights" (ACVR) is now serving it's purpose by being propagated on Rightwing blogs and Internet sites who either don't bother to look into something before posting it, or (perhaps more likely) look, but don't care.

I've left a comment on that item to counter their purposeful disinfo, though --- as is the case on many Rightwing sites which even bother to take comments, many don't --- the comment will have to be "approved" before it's posted. We'll see if it ever gets "approved".

That said, here is what I posted. Feel free to copy and post it, or anything you like, there and elsewhere. It's important that you guys don't let this disinformation --- from this fake group purposely formed to do exactly this --- get disseminated throughout the Rightwing Echo Chamber! Take Action NOW to Counter their Disinfo!

Your "nonpartisan American Center for Voting Rights" is a GOP front group specifically created (outta nowhere, Talon News-like, just last Thursday) to help disseminate the disinfo that you have dutifully reposted.

Pay attention. If Kerry/Edwards '04 lead attorney and the lead 2004 Communications Director from the DNC got together to create a fake group disseminating disinfo about an election *they* were involved in, would you call them "nonpartisan"?

Would you care if they were conducting "tax-exempt" activities at the expense of tax payers?

Would you care if they testified 3 days after forming as "experts" before a Congressional Hearing and didn't identify themselves as being high level Kerry/Edwards/DNC officials?

If you would care about all of that, then hold your own people to the same high standards. Or you have none yourselves.

Perhaps I also should have added how this fake "Voting Rights" group is an extraordinary insult to all the real voting rights groups and advocates who have put their lives on the line and have been killed in the process of trying to achieve true voting rights in America for centuries.

Perhaps I also should have mentioned the thousands of Americans now putting their lives on the line for true voting rights around the world, and how this ACVR group and their disinfo campaign is an affront to our American troops who are --- right now --- dying for this very cause.

Get to work! Start making some noise out there! I can't save democracy all by myself, ya know!

GOP TROLL??
Could it be that our friend SUSAN is more "IN the game" than she lets on.
Intrepid "Non Partisan" Voter Rights Campaigner MARK F. (THOR) HEARNE, II lists in his AC4VR Bio,
his marriage to (drumroll) ........ you guessed it! SUSAN!!

GOP TROLL??
Could it be that our friend SUSAN is more "IN the game" than she lets on.
Intrepid "Non Partisan" Voter Rights Campaigner MARK F. (THOR) HEARNE, II lists in his AC4VR Bio,
his marriage to (drumroll) ........ you guessed it! SUSAN!!
Are Republicans stupid enough to use their real name in blogs?
Great work Brad!

"Others argued that a vote for Carnahan on election day would count for nothing. In an e-mail circulating amongst Republicans written by St. Louis attorney Mark F. "Thor" Hearne II, he stated that "on November 7th Mel Carnahan is no longer a 'person' nor is he a citizen of Missouri." He went on to argue that because of this Carnahan would not meet the qualifications set for a senator in Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Hearne also made a case for the direct election of a senator. He claimed the position of senator is a directly elected office and therefore Wilson does not hold the right to appointment."

The right wing refusal to hear out the opposition will be their downfall. Number one rule in warfare is to study and completely understand the enemy. Brad's attitude toward wingnuts is the right one. Very, very healthy.

Here is some interesting commentary on the power of blogs and the advertising dilemma:

"But many companies are wary of putting their brand on such a new and unpredictable medium. Most blogs are written by a lone author. They are typically unedited and include spirited responses from readers who can post comments at will. Some marketers fear blogs will criticize their products or ad campaigns. And, like all new blog readers, companies are just learning how to track what's being said on blogs and which ones might make a good fit for their ads.

Blogs' reader commentary can take unpredictable turns --- which is why it takes a thick-skinned company to experiment in this medium. On Weblogs' Autoblog and Engadget blogs, some ads are followed by a link that says, "Comment on this automobile," or "Comment on this product/service." On Engadget, 24 readers did just that, offering praise, suggestions and criticism about the ad and the products for Griffin Technology, a Nashville, Tenn., maker of Apple accessories.

Some of the comments were negative, but according to Weblogs founder Jason Calacanis, customer-friendly companies need not be timid. "If you're hiding from your customers, you don't like their feedback, you treat your customers terribly, blogs are the worst place to be," he says, adding, "PR people and hype-based marketers are not doing well in the blogosphere."

Hey Theresa - the link you provided is available only for AOL members. What was it about?

BTW, it's hard to let everybody know just how much I appreciate all the great posts/links & enormous effort put in by the great folks gathering here at BradBlog, all working together to get & stay informed. This is an excellent community.

The snips above pretty much cover it. The blogs are a new and innovative market, and very tough and critical buyers. Advertisers are getting ready to come over, but they are afraid of us. Still, this is where the money will be. The power is already here.

PARTISAN AC4VR SOURCES VOTER FRAUD REPORT FROM PARTISAN CEFM
In his testimony to the House Administration Committee, Mark F (Thor) Hearne submits as evidence a report www.centerforethics.org VoterRegistrationStudy.htm prepared by Center for Ethics and the Free Market (CEFM)www.centerforethics.org
He not only fails to declare his own strong partisan GOP ties to the Committee, but further fails to declare the Center for Ethics and the Free Marketís high ranking GOP pedigree.

From CEFM website
Our Board of Directors...
John C. (Woody) Cozad has been active in politics and government in Missouri for nearly thirty years. He was appointed to the Missouri Health and Educational Facilities Authority, by then Governor Kit Bond in 1982 and was later elected Chairman of that organization, which issues revenue bonds for hospitals and schools. In 1985, then Governor Bond named him to the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission which oversees the state's Department of Transportation. Thereafter, Woody became a member of the Board of Curators of the University of Missouri System responsible for governance of the four campuses of the state's research university. From 1995 to 1999 Woody was Chairman of the Missouri Republican Party and a member of the Republican National Committee. For the past several years his "Food For Thought With Woody Cozad" commentaries have aired on the twenty plus stations of the Bott Radio Network. He is married to the former Linda Hickerson and they reside in rural Platte County, Missouri surrounded by dogs, cats, horses, and other fur-bearing creatures.
Richard H. (Rich) McClure is president of UniGroup, Inc., the parent of household goods transportation companies United Van Lines, LLC and Mayflower Transit, LLC, as well as related subsidiaries. United is the nationís largest mover; Mayflower is the fifth-largest.
Prior to joining the UniGroup management team, McClure was a banking executive with Central Bancompany of Missouri, a holding company with assets of $5 billion. From 1985 to 1992, he was chief of staff for then-Missouri Governor/now-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. Previously, McClure was deputy chief of staff and assistant to Illinois Governor Jim Thompson, and director of the Illinois Department of Central Management Services.
A native of Springfield, Missouri, McClure earned his bachelorís degree in management from Southwest Missouri State University and his masterís degree in public administration from The Maxwell School of Syracuse University. He currently serves on the boards of St. Louis Young Life; First National Bank of St. Louis; Central Bancompany; Missouri Baptist Medical Center; St. Louis Zoo; and St. Louis Area Boy Scouts of America.
McClure and his wife Sharon have been married for 25 years and have two children --- Ryan, 22, a recent journalism school graduate from the University of Missouri-Columbia; and Lindsay, 18, a senior at Westminster Christian Academy.
John B. Prentis
Born, St. Louis, 1937
Education, St. Louis Country Day School, 1955; Yale University, BA (political Science & Economics) 1959
Family, 4 Children, 7 grandchildren, wife (Nancy B. Prentis)
Business "Highlights" --- President, United Missouri Bank, 1972-76; President Omega Sports, 1977-84; Publisher, St. Louis Globe-Democrat, 1985-86; Vice president for Advancement, Covenant Theological Seminary, 1990-1995; Publisher, WORLD Magazine, 1998-2003.
World Magazine www.worldmag.com is currently running incandesent on the Terri Shiavo case.
From the Internic report Kyle Reliford is listed as admin, his full details:
Center for Ethics and the Free Market
Kyle Evans Reliford, Executive Director
P.O. Box 16082
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 971-1193
Web site: www.centerforethics.org
E-mail: center_for_ethics@yahoo.com
Opensecrets.org lists Kyle Reliford as on the RNC payroll

KIRA, you're dead right!
The Tobacco Industry uses the Orwellian phrase "Document Retention Policy" but we all now know what that really means!
Stand by for a thorough application of the GOP Document Retention Policy.
I might even buy some stocks in the company that makes Ajax cleanser

i've had many years organizing non-profits. Few people realize that the characteristics of a non-profit corporation are defined by state law, and generally deal with any surplus between income and expenses, and what happens to assets upon Disolution.

However, to gain tax exempt status, an application has to be made with the Internal Revenue Service. And such application requires at least a year of operating and the financial records that support the specific causes spelled out in the code.

Some of the lawyers you have been working with, should inquire of the Tax Exempt status of this group from IRS. Then publish the specific information and address of the IRS Complaint address.

Nothing like having 5,000 objections to your application before its even filed.

Again this does not affect the taxes of the group (which are controlled by State Law) but Tax Exemption is important to allwo doners to write off their donations from their taxes.

Its been awhile, so I don't remember the actual purposes listed in Sec.501 of the Tax Code that creates an exempt purpose, but many of these right wing non-profits ought to be challanged on a routine basis. The think tanks and foundations are probably ok, but not The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Without the ability of the wealthy to write off their support pre-tax, they'll soon be less effective

Some of the lawyers you have been working with, should inquire of the Tax Exempt status of this group from IRS. Then publish the specific information and address of the IRS Complaint address.

Nothing like having 5,000 objections to your application before its even filed.

Agreed! Though who are those "laywers [I'm] working with"?

Hopefully there are a few folks looking into this group status with the IRS, but I haven't done so myself specifically and don't currently have the resources to do so. I've encouraged others to do so, and hopefully they will.

But if you've got any good ideas on how to do it yourself, *please* don't wait for anyone else to do so!

"However, to gain tax exempt status, an application has to be made with the Internal Revenue Service. And such application requires at least a year of operating and the financial records that support the specific causes spelled out in the code."

And ACVR is HOW many days old? Please follow this thread. It's golden. ACVR could, therefore, NOT be a 501(c)3 organization as claimed and is THUS committing FRAUD in testifying to a U.S. Congressional panel.

Kira, my friend. Here is the article I promised. I think it portends a situation for the blogosphere, in which we will be facing our commitment to truth. As corporate advertising takes hold, it will take all our might not to sell our soul to the Devil.

"Many Advertisers Find Blogging Frontier Is Still Too Wild

By JESSICA MINTZ, The Wall Street Journal

Gawker Media, one of the biggest brands in Web log publishing, launched a saucy urban travel blog called Gridskipper on Jan. 31. On that day, the logo of the site's sole sponsor, Cendant Corp.'s Cheaptickets, could be found in ads on each page. But by Feb. 3, the company had removed its banners and boxes, leaving empty spaces on some pages.

What happened?

In the intervening days, Gridskipper covered editorial topics such as eating psychedelic mushrooms in Amsterdam's Van Gogh museum and the pricing policies of an escort service in Prague. Cheaptickets declined to comment, but Nick Denton, Gawker's founder, says he thinks the site was "too naughty" for its sponsor.

At their best, blogs are an advertiser's dream: the diary-style Web sites that feature running commentary and reactions are tightly targeted niche markets where avant-garde enthusiasts regularly return to read, post and send in tips. Well-placed blog ads can boost a company's image as cutting-edge. Plus, they're inexpensive: $350 a week, for instance, for premium positioning on Mr. Denton's high-profile inside-Washington blog, Wonkette, which got 2.2 million "page views" last month, a measure of how many times a single visitor looks at one Web site page.

But many companies are wary of putting their brand on such a new and unpredictable medium. Most blogs are written by a lone author. They are typically unedited and include spirited responses from readers who can post comments at will. Some marketers fear blogs will criticize their products or ad campaigns. And, like all new blog readers, companies are just learning how to track what's being said on blogs and which ones might make a good fit for their ads.

As a result, advertising on blogs is still in the early stages. Although advertising on Web sites was a $9.6 billion business in the U.S. last year, according to Interactive Advertising Bureau there is little data to date on blog ad-spending. Blogads.com, a service that matches bloggers and advertisers, says its business has grown from 28 ads in September 2002 to 1,685 ads last month.

The vast majority of the 8 million or so blogs currently in existence have few if any ads. Many are run by hobbyists or armchair commentators, some of whom sign up to carry tiny text ads from a large pool of advertisers through a service from Google Inc. The ads generate revenue only when a visitor clicks on the ad. Most bloggers, like Ronni Bennett, a former television producer who lives in New York's Greenwich Village and writes about aging on timegoesby.net, can't even offset the cost of her Internet access. Her site gets between 1,200 and 1,500 page views a day, bringing in all of $50 since December 2004.

For bigger advertisers, finding the right blog is critical, which is where Blogads.com comes in. Blogs that have been in existence for at least six months and have a dedicated readership can join Blogads.com's database, which currently lists about 750 sites. Advertisers use Blogads.com to find blogs with suitable content (technology, media, fashion) or political slant. They can purchase ads through Blogads.com by the week or the month. Prices range from $10 to $3,000 for better-known blogs. Marketers can chose which sites to advertise on and bloggers can accept or reject the ads.

Henry Copeland, Blogads.com's founder, works with marketers to create successful blog ads, which he says should be different from regular Web ads. "We just kind of shudder when we hear from an advertiser, 'Wow, I hear blogs are cool and cheap, and I want to be on a blog,' " he says.

Instead, he advises advertisers to think like bloggers, and remember they are joining an ongoing conversation, incorporate links to other sites and use a voice that fits the blog's general tone. Above all, he says, they should stop hitting readers over the head with giant logos. One good example he points to is an ad that Knopf, a publishing division of Bertelsmann AG's Random House, designed for Japanese novelist Haruki Murakami's most recent book. Rather than linking to a site that sells the book, Knopf's ad joins in the spirit of blogging by quoting and linking to other blogs that discuss the book, such as MetaFilter.

For advertisers dizzied by choices on Blogads.com, the few established blog networks stand out as relatively safe harbors. Mr. Denton's Gawker Media was founded in 2002, and now publishes 11 blogs including Gawker (gossip and pop culture), Gizmodo (gadgets), and Jalopnik (cars). Another network is Weblogs Inc., which now operates 76 blogs, including its own high-traffic gadget and car titles, Engadget and Autoblog. Weblogs has taken in $925,000 in advertising revenue over the last four months.

"For now, we prefer blog networks with known publishers," says John Cate, vice president and national media director for Carat Interactive, an international online-ad agency.

Some big advertisers have run successful blog campaigns. Sony Corp. is currently the sole sponsor of a geek-chic technology blog from Gawker Media called Lifehacker. A spokeswoman calls it "an initial pilot program" representing "a minimal investment for Sony Electronics."

Gawker's Jalopnik launched last year with Volkswagen AG's Audi as the sole sponsor. Linking up the two was relatively low-risk because the Audi message jibed with the site's audience --- cool, car-obsessed and Internet-savvy. "Audi is a dream advertiser. We like the cars. We can get enthusiastic about coming up with creative campaigns," says Gawker's Mr. Denton.

Jalopnik is "a natural medium for us to reach Audi prospects," says Jim Taubitz, Audi's online marketing manager. He says the ads performed as well as those placed on traditional Web sites; Audi ended its first run on Jalopnik in January, but is back for a weeks-long campaign for the launch of its new A4.

Jalopnik has written positively of Audi, but that wasn't in the contract. Just as with most reputable newspapers and magazines, Gawker and Weblogs say buying advertising on their blogs doesn't buy good publicity. In the blog world in general, though, there isn't any widespread ethical guarantee that bloggers won't be influenced by advertisers.

Blogs' reader commentary can take unpredictable turns --- which is why it takes a thick-skinned company to experiment in this medium. On Weblogs' Autoblog and Engadget blogs, some ads are followed by a link that says, "Comment on this automobile," or "Comment on this product/service." On Engadget, 24 readers did just that, offering praise, suggestions and criticism about the ad and the products for Griffin Technology, a Nashville, Tenn., maker of Apple accessories.

Some of the comments were negative, but according to Weblogs founder Jason Calacanis, customer-friendly companies need not be timid. "If you're hiding from your customers, you don't like their feedback, you treat your customers terribly, blogs are the worst place to be," he says, adding, "PR people and hype-based marketers are not doing well in the blogosphere."

For now, many big companies are sitting on the sidelines. "We're in a wait-and-see mode," says Stuart Bogaty, senior partner and managing director of mOne Worldwide, a digital ad agency that is part of WPP Group. He thinks that companies will remain skittish until agencies can better monitor and control what individual bloggers are saying about them. On the other hand, that might undercut their renegade appeal. "If we were able to convince a blogger to do that," he notes, "it would reduce the value of his blog in general."

I completely agree about their clumsiness. I've always thought this whole administration was totally incompetent. It would be laughable, if it weren't so ugly and tragic.
They are definitely coming undone.

To apply for recognition by the IRS of exempt status as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Code, use Form1023, Application for Recognition of Exemption and its instructions. The application must be complete and accompanied by the appropriate user fee. For more information, see Publication 557, Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization. See Application Process for a step-by-step review of what an organization needs to know and to do in order to apply for recognition by the IRS of tax-exempt status. In addition, Publication 4220, Applying for 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Status, is designed to help prospective charities apply for tax exemption under the tax law.

The organization should also request an employer identification number, even if the organization does not have any employees. Download Form SS-4, Application for Employer Identification Number, and its related instructions to learn how to obtain an EIN. You may also obtain an EIN via telephone, by calling 1-800-829-4933, or by applying online. For more information regarding EINs, see Publication 1635, Understanding Your EIN.

Except for churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and public charities whose annual gross receipts are normally less than $5,000, organizations will not be treated as described in section 501(c)(3) unless they notify the IRS that they are applying for recognition of section 501(c)(3) status. Organizations that are described in section 501(c)(3) but do not so notify the Service within 15 months of their creation will be treated as private foundations. An organization described in section 501(c)(3) will be a private foundation unless it meets the criteria set forth in section 509(a).

A charitable organization must make available for public inspection its approved application for recognition of exemption with all supporting documents and its last three annual information returns. Pursuant to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, the organization is required to provide copies of these documents upon request without charge (other than a reasonable fee for reproduction and copying costs). Penalties are provided for failure to comply with these requirements. For more information, see our frequently asked questions, the final regulations published in Internal Revenue Bulletin 1999-17, or Disclosure Requirements.

Unfortunately, although a 501(c)3 must disclose its tax records and expenditures at public request, it is not required to disclose contributors or contributor information.

However, political activity is a different matter:

"If any of the activities
(whether or not substantial) of your organization
consist of participating in, or intervening in, any
political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition
to) any candidate for public office, your organitable
zation will not qualify for tax-exempt status
under section 501(c)(3). Such participation or
intervention includes the publishing or distribut
ing of statements.
Whether your organization is participating or
intervening, directly or indirectly, in any political
campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any
candidate for public office depends upon all of
the facts and circumstances of each case. Cer-
tain voter education activities or public forums
conducted in a non-partisan manner may not be
prohibited political activity under section
501(c)(3), while other so-called voter education
activities may be prohibited." http://tinyurl.com/6fd4h

Brad, I went out in to the internets and left a lot of comments countering this group's claims. I will go back out later and leave more as it seems there are more than a few sites that have picked up and ran with this BS. Ya gotta give it to them, they know how to spread the shit far and wide.

MoveOn.org was founded in 1998 by a couple of people who thought that Congress ought to censure President Clinton and then move on to other things. You ought to take their advice: the election is over, President Bush won, and won decisively, the electoral vote has been certified, and the President inaugurated for his final term. In three years, nine months and 24 days he'll leave office peacefully. You might as well accept that and Get Over It.

A much longer comment from me can be found at commonsensepoliticalthought.com

In addition to countering the AC4VR claims I think we should point out that they should be deseminating information about ALL documented instances of voter fraud and irregularities. After reading the information posted on their website I find that every instance they cite concerns Democratic or traditionally liberal organizations.

Perhaps as concerned and supportive citizens we should be emailing them with documentation of Republican shenanigans and reminding them that to keep in compliance with their tax exempt 501(c)3 status (see post #27 above) as a non-partisan organization we would be more than happy to see these documents displayed on their website as well. If they really are what they say they are shouldn't they be grateful for the help we've provided in ensuring fair and honest elections?

You are showing a horrible political irresponsibility that effects all of us. This is not about President Bush. This is about the future of our country and the right for our people to have a fair election and voice in its government.
One should never, never, ever "Get Over It".
And we won't.

Your judgement cannot be taken seriously in light of the MANY serious allegations regarding the FAUX Election 2004 (and 2000). You either have not read the many documents that refute your claim that bu$h "won decisively" or you are unable to comprehend them, or you are so wrapped up in neoCON ideology that you are hopelessly lost.

I thank you for sparing us your 'much longer comment', and I ask you sincerely to refrain from parroting that worn out phrase 'get over it'. It has been said more that enough. It is useless and childish.
Thank you again.

I looked for a few to post on... the ones that are really rabid don't accept posts. Strangely. The ones that do are accepting 90% of posts from undergraduates, who've clearly ditched English and grammar classes in favor of reactionary blogging. Having lived through 10 years of postsecondary at USC (the real one), I recognize these people. They can't be reasoned with. Their fixation on their own entitlement does not allow for objectivity. IMO it's a waste of time to disseminate facts to that audience.

Pre-emptive negative feedback to MSM outlets is likely to have a greater effect. Let 'em all know that the ACVR is a sham (along with the evidence), and they'll be less likely to take them at all seriously. Might even consider exposing them newsworthy. Probably not.

The problem with Pico and everyone like him/her is that they feel totally useless and powerless (that or they support hate-mongers and war-mongers and people willing to kill 10s of thousands of humans for profit). I know 'supposedly' smart people that feel totally helpless in all this, and when confronted with it, they shut down or get aggresive in their responses.

The election will be UNDONE -if- it's "proved" that Shrubman put in the fix on the election. To say "it's over" is to presume there was no monumental foul-play involved. Hell, if we didn't have such a currupt Congress in place, they would impeach Shrubman based on his lying about Iraq.. Problem is, those jerkoffs in office are the ones getting rich(er) (them and their friends) and certianly don't oppose what he did. In fact, there is a transcript from when the resolution was being disucussed to go to Iraq and the chairman said (mostly accurate quote) "the Constitution is out-dated" and "can be ignored in this case". The commission ultimately agreed. War was -NOT- delcared, our troops are NOT (and were not) fighting in 'war time' and get NONE of the war-time benifits they should have gotten. The troops there -now- are not in a 'war time' action and therefore will -not- get benifits or care they deserve.

This is about a LOT more than some lying, cheating, stealing, coke-head, draft-dodger superceding some elections.. it's about the fast-track to destruction we're on as a country. Our representatives are all "rich folks" who don't believe the Constituion of the United States is valid any more. Religious icons in Federal buildings? Democratic process being disregarded? Congress intervening in a "white woman's right-to-die" case while pulling the plug on a poor black baby (not to mention all the looking-away to the deaths of abortion doctors and the blowing up of clinics by 'right to lifers')? Going to an illegal war contrived on proved lies and doing it with distinct disregard for the Constitutional mandates set up by the founding fathers? Killing thousands of American troops and HUNDREDS of thousands of Iraqi civilians over what is most likely trying to control some of the last oil reserves in the world?

Na.. we should just "get over it", right? Move along, nothing to see here.. These aren't the driods you are looking for.

Yes, well said Savantster
Hmmm, what was it? 3 years, 9 months ? days, it will be over. What a legacy he will leave behind. I think about his presidential library, will there be chimp photos? or the one of him giving us the finger? Pics of dead Iraqi children?Oh, I know, a big port. of Michael Moore! He hasn't really done anything, other than wage an illegal, immoral war, so what goes into a presidential library?

Well, he could get accolades like this in his library.. People using the fact that he's so overtly christian to champion their own "anti-secular, anti-Constitution" campaigns. Since Shrubman stole office for his second term, religious fanatics have been causing chaos all over the country, trying despirately to drive us to a theocracy..

That's the kind of thing that keeps me awake at night. These people, for some twisted reason, think -they- are the 'saviours' of society, that -they- somehow were who the founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the Constitution and set up a NEW country that was to be DIFFERENT than all the crappy ones out there at the time.

Funny thing is, while -most- christians seem to think our founding fathers were bible-thumpers, this list of quotes (and I've not actually done the research to verify all of them.. I suppose they could all be made up) shows that they were NOT such.. it also gives a little insight as to why we -have- a sepperation of Church and State.. why we do NOT have a theocracy..

Thanks for that link, what a great resource. I particularly liked this one:

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, setup to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

I have been reading a lot of posts over at freerepublic.com since this big showdown over Terri Schiavo began, and it is amazing to see the amount of hypocritical hatred being spewed by the evangelical right at what they percieve to be the highjacking of their religeously founded government by godless leftists and Satan worshiping activist judges.

I would love to read these quotes to these people only for the pleasure of watching them become confused when confronted with the truth as their empty little heads begin to smoke and explode with the overload.

Our founding fathers were diests. They were not Christians. It was OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE to them that church and state remain seperate. They were fully aware of the dangers and abuses of religious power. It is deeply ingrained in our national character, and that is why it is taking such a monumental effort to try and dismantle it.
It cannot be successful, and we shouldn't be afraid.
They are looking more and more like buffoons...irrational, frothing at the mouth, diseased beasts. More and more desperate by the minute. They will become pariahs soon.
It won't sell in the good 'ol USA.

POOR Ohio! As if they didn't have enough horror. What course is this Velvet Revolution of ours going to take to STOP this travesty of reason and humane thinking? I do NOT understand how an enlightened body politic could so quickly revert to medievalism.

It's as if the genetic memory of a superceded species of the genus loosely defined as "homo" had, all at once, been loosed upon an unsuspecting, complacently intelligent world. We are being overpowered by an inferior race. The survival of the world hangs in the balance. For goodness' sake, have we no effective strategies to combat ignorance and superstition? We've been around for a long time.

I find this thread invigorating. You see, with all you liberal idiots running around trying to develop conspiracy theories and bogey men, the real leaders have taken charge of this country and are moving us forward.

I guess your activities will keep you busy and out of the way for a long time. Then about the first Wednesday in November, 2006, you'll all be saying, "What happened?" once again.

PS: I have bookmarked your site under comedy. You all make me laugh. :laugh:

It's funny you call religious zealots "leaders".. People who lie, cheat, steal, and are about as morally bankrupt as humans can be, you call "leaders".

I'm glad we make you laugh.. I'm glad you think it's laughable that people want to preserve the Constitution and you think it's neato that this country is on the verge of a Theocracy. It's also amazing how ignorant you must be to think "reducing a guvernment to a religious state" is moving forward.. you see, history has shown that every time that happens? the country FALLS. That's not called progress, that's called self-destruction by ignorance, and YOU and your leaders -are- that ignorance.

We'll see how long you laugh once the Crusade starts in the US and people like me shoot people like you when you walk onto my yard carrying your bible and threatening to kill me for not bowing down to your god.

What's the MOST amazing is, people who believe in god as a being that runs the show and/or cares about humans are the ones "creating a conspiricy theory and boogey men (satan and the like)", but accuse those of us that use rational thought and facts of being some how deluded.. Free thought.. Free will.. it's amazing, you should try it.. get out from under that veil of brain-washed rubbish you live in at church and use that free will your god gave you.. stop being used as a pawn by "the powers that be" in this country, they certianly don't care about you any more than they do "us liberal idots".. you're soon to find that out. They care about themselves, and are paid by the corperations (who don't care about you or your god either, just your money and cheap labor).

One of the most disturbing things I see is that so many "Christians" don't seem to get what it means to be a Christian. They have forgotten that Christ died to set them free from the laws of the Old Testament. His message is in the Gospel (Good News), the New Testament.

If Christians really believed in the message of Jesus Christ, they would follow his words to them: "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you" John 15: 12 This is not how the Republican Theocrats believe or act.

Interestingly, I know atheists who display this kind of brotherly love more genuinely than most of the Evangelicals I've come into contact with.

The US government has been running towards Theocracy since the '80s. Pat Robertson ran for President in 1988. Unfortunately (for him) it was discovered that he & his wife married just a month or so before their first child was born. Oops

Pat Robertson today is holding a great deal of power & influence in what goes on behind the doors of the Oval Office today. Here's information on Pat - one of the "real leaders" Manananana #56 speaks of but probably doesn't have a clue about:

Pat Robertson has built an empire on earth by selling pie in the sky. He promoted himself as a sincere Christian, concerned about "taking the Gospel to every creature," and spreading the good word of the Lord. He proposed a Christian Broadcast Network (CBN), which would offer Christian preaching and teaching twenty four hours a day, providing spiritual strength and encouragement to the faithful, and saving millions of souls everywhere who might not otherwise have access to salvation of any kind.

The financing for this venture was an entrepreneur's dream: it would all come from Christian donations. For who could resist the opportunity to invest in the Kingdom of Heaven? Many made 'sacrificial gifts' because they sincerely believed they were helping to spread the Gospel through their support of CBN. Others were deeply moved by Robertson's promise that their gift would be 'returned to them a hundredfold.' The Reverend found that P. T. Bamum was right when he said, "There's one born every minute." The Christian TV channel idea had struck a nerve, and the donations came pouring in. And the best part was that since this was a 'religious organization,' it was granted a tax exempt status under IRS code 501(c)3.

There would be nothing wrong with any of this if the people behind the project were as sincere as some of their contributors, many of whom were obviously doing without in order to be able to send in their donations. One network employee reported, "You should see the thousands of social security checks sent over to CBN." At the other end of the scale, Pat Robertson and his son Timothy made a personal ninety six million dollar profit off the donations of the gullible. There shall come a profit throughout the land, indeed. It is hard not to be cynical in the face of such ruthless opportunism.

For Robertson and his cronies, the CBN was only a stepping stone. They had never intended to let it be simply a benign Christian ministry. From the moment it was launched in 1977, the name was tagged with the phrase, 'The Family Channel.' Four years later, The Family Channel would absorb CBN, and become an advertiser supported, entertainment oriented network, as part of Robertson's move away from the original Christian programming and toward what he called 'family values' programs. At the same time, however, he continued to broadcast aggressive telethons designed to raise money to "keep Christian programming on the air." Robertson even went so far as to plead with his viewers to send in their contributions, "otherwise we will be forced to begin eliminating stations, one by one, and the devil will have won!" Presumably, he was referring to the devil we don't know. But the blind faith of his audience never wavered, and in spite of the steady decline of Christian programs and the increase in the number of secular ones, millions of dollars poured in.

In 1988, CBN/Family Channel broadcasting revenue totaled 50.6 million dollars. Robertson's tax exempt revenues totaled 9.2 million dollars, with 'other' revenues coming to 41.4 million dollars. By all legal as well as moral considerations, the profits from these huge revenues should have been used for Christian goals. But they were not. Pat Robertson took the money and ran for President of the United States.

And there really is a great deal of money involved in this tangled web. The tax exempt ministry was the 'parent' of a group of nonprofit as well as for-profit organizations, including International Family Entertainment, Inc. (IFE), established in 1989 as a holding company by Robertson and his son Tim for one purpose: to buy out CBN and turn it into a commercial venture. Pat and Tim took one hundred and fifty thousand dollars of their contributors' money and transformed it into a personal fortune of ninety million dollars. Since CBN was registered with the IRS as a 'nonprofit' entity, there were no taxes paid on the transaction. That may be acceptable to some of the more devout Christian taxpayers, but there are undoubtedly many others who might feel cheated.

The IFE/Family Channel's revenues went up to 114 million dollars in 1991. Over and above the personal profits Robertson pocketed from his backstage wheeling and dealing, he drew a salary of 364,984 dollars. His son Tim earned 465,731 dollars. In 1992 those salaries were raised to 390,61 1 dollars for Robertson and 490,204 dollars for Tim. In 1995, the last preaching show was canceled from the network. It is significant that a condition of the sale of CBN was a guarantee that "The 700 Club" would still be aired in prime time. This show is promoted as a Christian program, but it is in fact one of Robertson's main fund-raisers on the network. And, along with a few half-hearted verses of Scripture tossed in here and there, that's all that's left of the Christian programming and spiritual content that his audience originally bought into. The devotion that Robertson inspires is truly amazing: the wolf in sheep's clothing has fleeced the flock, and they still come back for more.

Robertson's primary energies are entrepreneurial. Profit and power are his gods. In 1991, he traveled the country, speaking at rallies and gatherings everywhere. Not about family values; not about the Kingdom of God; not about living according to Christian principles. No, this was just another promotional tour, and Robertson was selling his latest business idea, a new 'multilevel' marketing company that would sell 'passport' discount-coupon books to Christian families. The 'product' offered discounts on everything from generic drugs to vacation condos, and the potential profits, as Robertson proclaimed, were unlimited.

"With God there is no cap. In the multilevel business, the sky is the limit."

His Scripture-quoting sales pitch lit the fire under some of the faithful, and out came the check books to invest in the Reverend's heaven-sent opportunity. The venture initially seemed to prosper, and branched out to include exotic products such as vitamins and skin creams from the Holy Land.

Company records show that millions of dollars from CBN, the tax exempt ministry, were funneled into this project, which was gloriously profitable for Robertson but turned out to be a losing proposition for all his victims. Lacking a gullible market like themselves, they lost many thousands of dollars when they were unable to sell the products they had trustingly bought from Robertson's company. Their investments sank beneath the weight of brochures, fliers, and video tapes they were also obliged to purchase.

And then, barely a year later, the company abruptly changed directions, leaving their distributors with garages full of cartons of discount-coupon books, and the unpleasant suspicion that they had victimized.

Robertson became interested in a company that produced high-potency vitamin supplements, and soon decided to make them his main product line. Renaming the company, Kalo Vita, The Good Life Co., he offered a line of health products, including deodorized garlic pills, pills that help you slim while you sleep, and a nutritional drink called the American Whey. Company executives called the new line a

"complete health and-body management system."

It was later found that the vitamins themselves were irresponsibly manufactured, with a potency that was too high for the average consumer. Also, according to former Kalo Vita president Mark Peterson, the product was being sold at an excessive markup,

"We were buying it for 7 to 8 dollars a bottle, and selling it for 49.95."

The company had pledged to buy back any coupon books that distributors were unable to sell. But this turned out to be more of a sales pitch than a real commitment. When Ron Santom tried to return more than seven hundred fifty dollars worth of coupon books, he was told that the company's board had,

"changed the policy," and that refunds were no longer being offered.

Lois Flockhart, a 76 year old retiree, says she lost more than seven thousand dollars, and was forced to refinance her Indianapolis home. Terry Young, who was a volunteer in Pat Robertson's failed presidential campaign, lost ten thousand dollars along with his respect for Robertson. Young is understandably bitter, and says,

"I can't even turn his program on anymore."

To be fair, though, both sides should be able to have equal time. So here's a statement made to the Washington Post by a representative of Pat Robertson's financial organization,

"Profit is not a dirty word. The Robertsonís are merely good Christian business executives."

While his loyal distributors were losing the investments they had made in his company, Robertson received $38,609 in 1992 as his fee for making promotional speeches and videos which generated even more money for him and his associates. His family was also benefitting directly: his son Gordon served as the firm's chief lawyer, and one of his daughters was installed at the top of the pyramid-style distribution chain.

Robertson is not very subtle in his blatant greed. At the Christian Coalition's "Road to Victory" conference in September 1995, he included an advertisement in the program, inviting Coalition members to sign up as distributors for Kalo Vita, now wholly owned by Robertson. The ad stated,

"Christian Coalition Members - You've Made Your Political Voice Heard!!! Now Make Your Economic Voice Heard!!!"

And he introduced new products, such as 'Good Life spot remover,' ' Hydro-Complex Hair Care,' and 'Sea of Galilee face creams and mud masks'. No doubt keeping an eye on the marketing success of the girl scouts, he soon plans to introduce a line of his own "personally-tasted oatmeal cookies".

As unsettling as Robertson's business practices appear to be, it is even more troubling that no charges have been filed against his operations. His promises that

"membership in the company would solve family financial problems,"

are, at the very least, deceptive advertising. His implication that members would earn at least $3,600 a month is downright misleading. His misrepresentations have caused many people to lose their life savings. His emotional, and highly successful, appeals for money from those who can't afford it would make snake oil salesmen everywhere take off their hats in awe and pride. But in spite of this unsavory track record, no fraud charges have been filed. Nor have there been any charges brought against the Reverend for selling the nonprofit Christian Broadcasting Network - for a profit. Now, let's back up a little and take a better look at this "good Christian business deal".

Money was solicited in a public offering for the specific purpose of building a nonprofit television network, to be used exclusively for broadcasting Christian material of a spiritual nature. Once this had been accomplished, the network was sold - for personal profit - so that it could switch to secular programming. Am I missing something or does this sound like a gigantic fraud? Surely anybody else who raised money for a specific purpose, didn't deliver on their promise, and then used that money for something else, would be sent straight to jail. But Robertson's wealth and the clout of his Christian Coalition give him an influence over politicians that essentially keeps him above the laws of the land. His influence apparently extends to the IRS also, because the activities of the Christian Coalition certainly don't entitle them to the tax exempt status they enjoy under a 501(c)3 classification. It's enough to make anyone want to go down to the temple and kick over a few money-changers' tables!

It is of interest to note that Robertson has a prot6g6, the Rev. Ronn Haus, an Assemblies of God minister who copied his master's model and created the United Christian Broadcast network, based in Concord, California. Haus began negotiating the sale of his own donor-built network as soon as it was built, while continuing to plead for contributions to "keep 24 hour a day Christian programming on the air" for four months after the sale had taken place! The public had no idea that the UCB had been sold to 'infomercial' producer Harry Pappas until the deal was exposed by the media. All Christian shows gradually disappeared from the UCB's programming, with the exception of Haus's "Coast to Coast" production which, like Robertson's "The 700 Club," is a major money-maker for the good Reverend.

It's all about money, and that's all there is to it. Even when the sale was exposed, in May of 1995, the Rev. Haus continued with his fund raising. In fact, he didn't actually get around to admitting it until August, three months after the sale had taken place. And the following month he sent a letter, through the US Postal Service, asking for "generous gifts of love to keep Great Christian programming on Channel 42 (UCB) on the air." Under the circumstances, as in Robertson's case, one would think, "There's no way anybody is going to buy that!" But they do. And in spite of the blatant hypocrisy and more than questionable fund-raising tactics, the money keeps pouring in.

Also as in Robertson's case, no investigations of the UCB have taken place, despite repeated demands from donors who felt that their money was stolen from them, despite the apparent mail fraud, market fraud, and the flaunting of both IRS and FCC regulations.

In spite of all this data, the NRB (National Religious Broadcasters), whose very reason for being is to make religious broadcasters accountable and to demand ethical fund-raising practices from their stations, looked the other way. This comes as no surprise when we learn the Rev. Ronn Haus sits on their Board of Directors.

So much for the Reverend Robertson's business practices. Now it's time to look a little more closely at the man who wants your money.

Who and what is Pat Robertson?

He preaches Christian character. What kind of Christian character does he have?

He preaches morals. What kind of morals does he have?

He raises money on the abortion issue. How sincere is he?

Is he truly committed to the political issues he espouses regarding 'family values'?

He professes to be led by God. Does he really believe in God?

GO TO CHAPTER SIX

=========================

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
----Thomas Jefferson, in his historic Danbury letter, January 1, 1802----

Funny how the so-called "moral majority" (oxymoron if I ever heard one since it's really neither) takes such delight in bashing anyone who has a different belief from them. Calling intelligent people "idiots" is really idiotic. But, I guess we have a large group in this country that is anti-learning. Hypnotized and medicated sheeple.

No they won't, Savantster. Do not be afraid. They have a right to exist and express their views, too. The more they do, the more they hang themselves. If you try to obliterate them, that will exacerbate the problem. Let them be. Fight ignorance with awareness and wisdom.

The way they came out out of the blue and immediately were invited to testify before the committee calling themselves non-partisan, just shows their contempt for the American public. Like that cereal commercial -let's give it Mikey, he'll eat anything.

And this arrogance will be their undoing. This Schiavo's affair, basically an attempted coup, showed that people can see though them, their lies, their hypocrisy, their crookedness, and a fundamental lack of decency, and they do not appreciate that. It just needs to be driven home by any means possible every time they display it, especially when it's as blatant and shameless as this ACVR stunt.

They don't believe in Armageddon. It's all fake. They can't trash our planet. It is too busy creating earthquakes. They are frightened little people and you can usually find a lot of family trauma in their backgrounds. The only destruction they can achieve is of their own selves.

There are a lot of ordinary folks in the USA right now who are tiring of them. They've been center stage long enough, and the show will lose its fascination when people turn and walk away.

I made a comment here a few minutes ago which my server promptly lost to the ether by losing its signal. Arrgh...

Anyway, it said, in effect, that, although the FundyCons may not be capable of destroying our planet by themselves, they are certainly opening the gates for the multinationals to do the work for them. To the barricades, folks! This is a fight to the (literal) finish!

See how silly you are? I couldn't care less about religion, being an atheist and all. I know that's hard for you stoolies to gronk, but its true.

What a bunch of 'tards. You're making a big mistake blaming everything on religion. There are plenty more just like me. We just find lefties to be a bunch of drooling idiots. How else do you explain Barbara Boxer? How about "Sheets" Byrd? And WTF planet is that moron Kucinich from?

I laugh at you all because you stand in line to inhale deeply the odiferous stench of Michael Moore's farts and then call it french perfume. What a bunch of toads.

I can see why he thought I called him religious.. I mentioned him dying on my lawn with his bible in his hand.. though, he may well still be an athiest lying there in a pool of his own blood, gasping his last breaths.. he'd be there because he'd have to sell out and at least -pretend- to be christian (like most christians actually do) to prevent being lynched himself when his "real leaders" madate a belief in christianity to be allowed to live here.

It's funny that he'd mention Michael Moore, the guy that shows more truth in a 2 hour documentary than any repugnecon does in a lifetime. I actually watched FeirenhYpe 9-11 as well as Michael's movie. What I found was, the -only- thing that was said that had -any- merit was Michael adjusted an editorial to make it look like a headline.. funy that the ONLY thing they could touch in the entire FACT FILLED movie that ONE thing. Everything else said by the "right's rebuttle" was pap. Useless crap that had NOTHING to do with refuting any facts presented. So, yeah.. you go ahead and say it's all crap Michael spouted, nothing of merit. Keep living with your head up your ass, that's your perogative.

I'm still amazed every time I see/hear/read some wouldbe human being support those in power that are thoroughly screwing over 90% of this country.. people who call liers/cheaters/stealers/amoral scum, 'leaders' and think they are doing anything for America, the world, or any one or thing than themselves... Simply amazing.. Course, evil comes in many forms. Manananana must just be one of those rotten human beings *shrug*

I am a Leftie and I am not particularly fond of Michael Moore. But from what I understand, the odiferous stench of dead bodies in Fallujah was unbearably unpleasant. You remeber... the war that this Rightie president started.

You are showing a horrible political irresponsibility that effects all of us. This is not about President Bush. This is about the future of our country and the right for our people to have a fair election and voice in its government.
One should never, never, ever "Get Over It".
And we won't.

Your judgement cannot be taken seriously in light of the MANY serious allegations regarding the FAUX Election 2004 (and 2000). You either have not read the many documents that refute your claim that bu$h "won decisively" or you are unable to comprehend them, or you are so wrapped up in neoCON ideology that you are hopelessly lost.

Your comments are not patriotic.

"
I find these comments amusing. Kira called the elections of 2004 "FAUX," by which I assume she meant that they were false. The fact is that President Bush won an absolute majority of the popular vote, and won both the popular vote and the vote in Ohio by just about the margins the professional pollsters (Gallup and the others) predicted in the last polls prior to the election. I understand that you didn't like the outcome, but that's democracy: sometimes your preferred candidate wins, and sometimes he loses. In 2004, your preferred candidate (I assume that you were both supporters of Mr Kerry) lost. Maybe in three more years, my preferred candidate will lose.

You had a fair election, guys, and you didn't win.

It seems to me that the Democrats have two choices: they can continue to cry, "We wuz robbed," and look backward, or they can ask themselves how they can refine their policies and their message to win in 2006 and 2008. Doing both seems an improbable feat.

The Democrats have already tried the looking back in rage approach; they tried it in 2002. Terry McAuliffe promised that the Democrats would get revenge on President Bush by unseating his brother as governor of Florida. The result was that Jeb Bush was reelected by a large margin, and Katherine Harris, another subject of Democratic ire, won a seat in Congress. that approach didn't do y'all very much good, did it?

The problem with Pico and everyone like him/her is that they feel totally useless and powerless (that or they support hate-mongers and war-mongers and people willing to kill 10s of thousands of humans for profit). I know 'supposedly' smart people that feel totally helpless in all this, and when confronted with it, they shut down or get aggresive in their responses.

The election will be UNDONE -if- it's "proved" that Shrubman put in the fix on the election. To say "it's over" is to presume there was no monumental foul-play involved. "

Yeah, uh huh, right.

OK, let's say that you can prove that President Bush "put in the fix on the election." To remove him from office, you need a majority of the House of Representatives (controlled by the Republicans) to vote out an article of impeachment, and then you need two-thirds of the Senate (that's 67 Senators) to vote to remove him from office; 55 of the Senators are Republicans.

And if you manage to do all of that, the new president is Dick Cheney!

Lots of luck!

"Na.. we should just "get over it", right? Move along, nothing to see here.. These aren't the driods you are looking for."

Well, go right ahead! But if you want to actually win elections, you need to have something that you are for, and not just be screaming about all the things you are against.

In the end, if you want to win, you need to have a sensible leader put together a serious package, and go out and persuade the American people that he has the better ideas and will be the better leader. If you can do that, you'll win. If all that you have is rage, like what the Democrats had in 2004, come the election of 2008 you'll get your feelings hurt again.

More like in 2008 they're gonna get their asses handed to them. They'll all be trying to move to Canada in droves. But the Canucks ain't havin' any. So look forward to many, many more years of whining, complaining, and conspiracy theories in lieu of any ideas or a plan to win anything.

They virtually committed suicide as a party when they put the abortionist from Vermont in charge of it. But it will be fun to watch them stumbling around losing more and more of their own constituency due to their own radicalism and negative approach to politics. The Republicans have already gathered twice as much money as the sorry Democrats in this campaign cycle. Even Soros won't be able to keep up.

Imagine what it will be like in 2006 when we have a filibuster-proof 60 seats in the Senate. The libs won't know what hit 'em and I say its about time.

Well, it's obvious we have 2 trolls here who are beyond any hope. Move along y'all, nothin' to see here.

There's no use pointing out to these people that there really is NO way to PROVE bu$h won the election because no one can audit the paperless DREs (Direct Recording Electronic voting machines.) Thereís absolutely no way to know whether the program accurately stored votes as they were entered.

No reputable business in this country or the entire world for that matter, would accept a computer system like the DRE voting machine to maintain their business records.

Itís a disgrace to our country that for our voting system we have implemented a technological ďsolutionĒ so obviously flawed it would not even meet U. S. standard business and accounting practices. And this was ďthe election of our lifetimesĒ according to all the news leading up to November 2, 2004.

The voting machines put in place for this election should have been MUCH more accountable than what is required by normal business standards but they're not even up to the bare-minimum standard. How many of you would put your money in a bank that used this kind of machine? Only a fool would. Q.E.D.

These machines were produced and are supported by neoCON Republicans & highly partisan corporations --- but who would expect them to do anything reputable? Just look at their record in the past 10 years.

This is just whatís obvious, and those who ignore these facts are either just plain stupid or unethical or both.

And by the way - I was never oriented to a single political Party. I researched the facts from both sides, but the current version of the Republican Party (neoCON/fascist) is a sickening anti-American group.

Oh, I dunno. Maybe we could check who's living in the house at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and who's back to fetching drinks for Tuh-Ray-Zuh. You also might look at who all the world's leaders make an effort to visit when they come to the US. And as a final tie-breaker, who is flying in Air Force One and who is flying in "the flying squirrel"? That should do it for you.

I researched the facts from both sides...

If you're gonna tell jokes, you shouldn't embed them in all that paranoid drivel - it hurts the humorous impact when the punchline is so hard to find.

More humor. What exactly did you prove? That is what Q.E.D. means, you know. So what do you think you proved? I submit that if no one can figure out what you're talking about, it isn't much of a proof. In fact, it's funnier than Kerry's increasing number of excuses for not signing the SF-180. I think he's up to "my dog ate it." about now.

That's it? Run and hide? Stick your fingers in your ears? Typical lib reaction. And you libs are always whining about "dialog" and using it as a verb and all. What hogwash. You just like to hear yourself talk and when someone challenges you, you run away. Most people abandon that tactic about the third grade.

Hey, if Major Kira wishes to believe that people are trolls, simply because they don't share her opinions, she's entitled to that opinion.

But that's what I meant by the difference between looking forward and looking back. Looking forward, and trying to figure out what message will resonate with the American people and what leader will inspire confidence will give the Democrats a decent shot at winning elections; whining and name calling will get them exactly what they got in 2004: hurt feelings.

Some people like to see more than one side of an argument; that's why I looked in here in the first place. But when I'm told to "Move along y'all, nothin' to see here," I have to wonder if the left is willing to look at things with which they disagree.

You're gonna convince a lot of people with that attitude, I'm sure. Of course, they'll already agree with you because if they don't...well...you just run and hide. There seems to be an echo in here. in here. in here.